MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC Vs. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/corporation, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the award passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) THOUGH the matter was listed for admission, with consent of both sides, taken for final hearing and heard. It is submitted for the Corporation that when the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the Labour Court was required to consider the records of enquiry besides the finding arrived at in the domestic enquiry but, without doing so, mainly on the ground that MW-1 was not offered for cross-examination, the Labour Court wrongly proceeded to hold charge as not proved observing that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the Corporation to prove the misconduct and so also the learned Single Judge and as such, interference by this Court is required. On the other hand, it is submitted for the respondent that when the Labour Court has recorded its finding on the basis of evidence available before it, it cannot be said to be perverse so as to call for interference by this Court and rightly, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with it. Perused the records carefully.

(3.) IN the present matter, the respondent was admittedly working as driver under the Corporation. On 16. 11. 1993, the bus driven by the respondent caused an accident, in which 8 years boy died. So, he was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charge of misconduct namely, driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing death of a minor boy. On proof of the said charge in that enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of his dismissal from service. So, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that domestic enquiry conducted against him was fair and proper. However, a witness namely, Ashok Kumar, who was examined as mw-1 with 14 documents marked during his evidence on issue no. 1 namely, whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, did not appear for cross-examination. So, the Labour Court, observing that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the Corporation for the charge, held that charge has not been proved and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent into service with 50% of back wages besides continuity of service. Aggrieved by it, the Corporation filed writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed it. Hence, this intra-Court appeal by the corporation.